So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[PathtoFIRE]

Re: Sessions, it feels like ages since Trump started criticizing him on Twitter, and it's been on a semi-regular basis; it wouldn't surprise me to see the Sessions mention count hovering in the top 5 to top 10 (after Obama, Hillary, and Mueller of course).

So why is Sessions still in office?!

We saw Trump really dawdle with having Pruitt removed (sorry, "resigned"), but he had mostly good things to say about him in the run up to that (and there were whispers that Pruitt was being held on to specifically to replace Sessions; now I'm hearing Senator Graham is being whispered as the next AG). Outside of the Mueller investigation, Sessions has been a pretty consistent champion of Trump's and the GOP's policies on immigration, rolling back the movement to investigate and contain police violence, reverse course on many pending lawsuits in a number of other social and regulatory areas. Trump really seems petty enough to me, though, that despite all that Sessions has done for him and the GOP, Trump wouldn't care if there was just one area (Russia) where Sessions failed to display total loyalty.

I know that there was an assumption that Sessions had some degree of protection due to his Senate past, and with Trump basically needing no Senate defections to carry out legislative victories, so maybe that explains it and now that Senators are turning against Sessions, we'll see him gone soon.

I kind of like the narrative that says "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" though; maybe Sessions has some sort of leverage over Trump, maybe over Russia or other crimes during the campaign, transition, and/or early presidency, that compels Trump to keep him on, even when he wants to fire Sessions.

Still begs that question of why continually call out Sessions on Twitter; maybe it's as simple as Trump really wants to keep Sessions around, but also really wants him to stop doing this one small "simple" thing (recusal), and he thinks he's going to get what he wants if he keeps badgering Sessions publicly.

[nereo]

I cant imagine what justification one could give for “un-recusal” from a case.  Either you have to say that you misunderstood the original conflict of interest (and it never in fact existed) OR the COI somehow has “gone away.”

 

[thd7t]

Guiliani is telling the press that Trump has asked his lawyers about pardoning Manafort and that they told him to wait until the investigation is over.  Does this look like the most shameless way to telegraph the coming pardon to Manafort to keep him from flipping?

[Jrr85]

the violation itself was basically a record keeping/reporting violation.

The difference is that this was an intentional effort to conceal a known crime, not a paperwork mistake.  See the difference?

Trump's affair was not a crime (or int he event he was in one of the jurisdictions that still has infidelity or fornication on the books as a criminal offense, not one that can be prosecuted).  If the payment was a campaign expense, the only crime was not reporting it.  The fact that he was paying it because he was being blackmailed about an affair is certainly seedier, but the crime, if any exists, is a reporting/record keeping one.  I suspect if Trump had thought it was a campaign expenditure, he would have been happy for the campaign to pay for it and to filter it through Cohen as "legal expenses" like Hillary did for opposition research.   

Of course I suspect if that had happened all the people currently absolutely certain that it was a campaign expenditure would instead be arguing that he used campaign funds for a personal expense. 

[Malloy]

the violation itself was basically a record keeping/reporting violation.

The difference is that this was an intentional effort to conceal a known crime, not a paperwork mistake.  See the difference?

Trump's affair was not a crime (or int he event he was in one of the jurisdictions that still has infidelity or fornication on the books as a criminal offense, not one that can be prosecuted).  If the payment was a campaign expense, the only crime was not reporting it.  The fact that he was paying it because he was being blackmailed about an affair is certainly seedier, but the crime, if any exists, is a reporting/record keeping one.  I suspect if Trump had thought it was a campaign expenditure, he would have been happy for the campaign to pay for it and to filter it through Cohen as "legal expenses" like Hillary did for opposition research.   

Of course I suspect if that had happened all the people currently absolutely certain that it was a campaign expenditure would instead be arguing that he used campaign funds for a personal expense.

I don't get this take. There's already a guilty plea because the crime exists.  It's not Schroedinger's campaign finance violation.   Is this where the red caps are these days?  He paid off a porn star but it's just the same as when the Obama campaign didn't get their reports in on time?  The problem with that is that this story has everything: sex, blackmail, the National Enquirer.  It's right in the cognitive wheelhouse for his base.  They don't know shit about the Magnitsky Act, but they sure know about porn stars and tabloids.  So, it not only seems wrong to pay off a porn star, but it turns out that it actually is illegal.  You don't really get that feeling when you hear that the Obama campaign was supposed to get their donors reported within 48 hours, failed to do it, but then paid a fine.  Again, this isn't a comment on whether actions have to sound slimy to actual be illegal (lots of slimy things are perfectly legal and lots of innocent-sounding things are not), but it's harder to get the public on your side when the slimy actions line up with actual violations of the law.

[nereo]

the violation itself was basically a record keeping/reporting violation.

The difference is that this was an intentional effort to conceal a known crime, not a paperwork mistake.  See the difference?

Trump's affair was not a crime (or int he event he was in one of the jurisdictions that still has infidelity or fornication on the books as a criminal offense, not one that can be prosecuted).  If the payment was a campaign expense, the only crime was not reporting it.  The fact that he was paying it because he was being blackmailed about an affair is certainly seedier, but the crime, if any exists, is a reporting/record keeping one.  I suspect if Trump had thought it was a campaign expenditure, he would have been happy for the campaign to pay for it and to filter it through Cohen as "legal expenses" like Hillary did for opposition research.   

Of course I suspect if that had happened all the people currently absolutely certain that it was a campaign expenditure would instead be arguing that he used campaign funds for a personal expense.

You make this seem as if this is some sort of clerical error.  As Sol said, Trump allegedly directed Cohen to pay off at least two women utilizing the Trump Organization as well as have a media company (AMI) squash an unfavorable opinion expressly because of the negative impact it would have on his ongoing presidential campaign.
Here you're trying to paint Trump as some victim of blackmail - but he didn't contact the FBI. He decided to break the law, and have Cohen break the law, and have several other executives soil their hands as well.  Meanwhile he was publicly denying these very affairs.

[Jrr85]

the violation itself was basically a record keeping/reporting violation.

The difference is that this was an intentional effort to conceal a known crime, not a paperwork mistake.  See the difference?

Trump's affair was not a crime (or int he event he was in one of the jurisdictions that still has infidelity or fornication on the books as a criminal offense, not one that can be prosecuted).  If the payment was a campaign expense, the only crime was not reporting it.  The fact that he was paying it because he was being blackmailed about an affair is certainly seedier, but the crime, if any exists, is a reporting/record keeping one.  I suspect if Trump had thought it was a campaign expenditure, he would have been happy for the campaign to pay for it and to filter it through Cohen as "legal expenses" like Hillary did for opposition research.   

Of course I suspect if that had happened all the people currently absolutely certain that it was a campaign expenditure would instead be arguing that he used campaign funds for a personal expense.

I don't get this take. There's already a guilty plea because the crime exists.  It's not Schroedinger's campaign finance violation.

  Guilty pleas don't establish law.  They aren't precedent.  Cohen pled to a charge that would be questionable whether it could be proved either because he got spectacularly bad legal advice, or he just wanted to get back at Trump, or he is relying on an informal promise from the prosecutors.  Presumably the latter of those options. 

   Is this where the red caps are these days?  He paid off a porn star but it's just the same as when the Obama campaign didn't get their reports in on time?

  No, what is the same is that if the payment was a campaign expenditure, he didn't report a campaign expenditure.  What is different is that he probably didn't know it was a campaign expenditure versus Obama's team knowing they needed to file reports and reject illegal donations, but simply couldn't keep up with the administrative burden (which is not uncommon).

The problem with that is that this story has everything: sex, blackmail, the National Enquirer.  It's right in the cognitive wheelhouse for his base.  They don't know shit about the Magnitsky Act, but they sure know about porn stars and tabloids.  So, it not only seems wrong to pay off a porn star, but it turns out that it actually is illegal.  You don't really get that feeling when you hear that the Obama campaign was supposed to get their donors reported within 48 hours, failed to do it, but then paid a fine.  Again, this isn't a comment on whether actions have to sound slimy to actual be illegal (lots of slimy things are perfectly legal and lots of innocent-sounding things are not), but it's harder to get the public on your side when the slimy actions line up with actual violations of the law.

I have no opinion on how it will play in the public.  Even after the fact, I can't imagine how we ended up with Hillary Clinton and Donal Trump as the major party nominees for president, so I certainly can't predict how the public will handle things, but what statute does paying hush money to keep an extramarital affair private violate?  I'm pretty sure that's not illegal.

[Jrr85]

the violation itself was basically a record keeping/reporting violation.

The difference is that this was an intentional effort to conceal a known crime, not a paperwork mistake.  See the difference?

Trump's affair was not a crime (or int he event he was in one of the jurisdictions that still has infidelity or fornication on the books as a criminal offense, not one that can be prosecuted).  If the payment was a campaign expense, the only crime was not reporting it.  The fact that he was paying it because he was being blackmailed about an affair is certainly seedier, but the crime, if any exists, is a reporting/record keeping one.  I suspect if Trump had thought it was a campaign expenditure, he would have been happy for the campaign to pay for it and to filter it through Cohen as "legal expenses" like Hillary did for opposition research.   

Of course I suspect if that had happened all the people currently absolutely certain that it was a campaign expenditure would instead be arguing that he used campaign funds for a personal expense.

You make this seem as if this is some sort of clerical error.  As Sol said, Trump allegedly directed Cohen to pay off at least two women utilizing the Trump Organization as well as have a media company (AMI) squash an unfavorable opinion expressly because of the negative impact it would have on his ongoing presidential campaign.
Here you're trying to paint Trump as some victim of blackmail - but he didn't contact the FBI. He decided to break the law, and have Cohen break the law, and have several other executives soil their hands as well.  Meanwhile he was publicly denying these very affairs.

  I'm not trying to paint him as a victim of blackmail.  He was a victim of blackmail.  Stormy Daniels threatened to make information public unless he gave her money.  That is as clear of a case of blackmail as you could come up with. 

He did probably break some tax related laws by having his organization pay for it.  I guess depending on the corporate structure, it's possible they didn't deduct the expense and it flowed through to him on his personal taxes.  But nobody seems to be focused on that for whatever reason. 

But I don't think it's clear that he decided to break any campaign finance law.  I doubt he was aware that paying hush money would arguably be a campaign expenditure.

[Glenstache]

I have no opinion on how it will play in the public.  Even after the fact, I can't imagine how we ended up with Hillary Clinton and Donal Trump as the major party nominees for president, so I certainly can't predict how the public will handle things, but what statute does paying hush money to keep an extramarital affair private violate?  I'm pretty sure that's not illegal.

Here's where the DOJ makes its case. See both the indictment (first doc) and the Information (second doc, scroll down). Campaign finance violations begin on page 11 of the information
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement

According to the information, Cohen had an assigned responsibility of using money to suppress stories that would negatively impact the campaign. Those are campaign expenses. Hiding those expenses is illegal. Not knowing that is not a get out of jail free card. Covering up the expenses was not a "oops, we forgot to write that in a ledger." According to the information, Cohen set up shell companies through which to make the payments. This was willful and intentional in order to suppress information about the candidate. This is not the same as not being able to meet an administrative burden, as you put it above. It is also clearly not a private transaction in which Trump handed a former mistress an envelope with cash drawn from his personal account.

ETA: as is clear in the indictment, the women were negotiating with third parties to sell their stories to tabloids. Trump's campaign bought the rights to the stories, effectively suppressing them. That is not direct blackmail.

[nereo]

David Pecker - president of the National Enquirer - has been granted immunity to share with Mueller's team what he knows about Trump's involvement to suppress negative stories (including Daniels and McDougal) during the 2016 election.

Man, when it rains it pours...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pecker-granted-immunity-in-cohen-case-1535041976

[Dancin'Dog]

If would have been smart of Trump to legalize recreational drugs, prostitution, gambling, and anything else he could think of to keep us from "paying attention" to his crooked ways. 


I think football season started again, but that's just not enough of a diversion for his 3 ring circus. 


Btw, can a President plea insanity?  It seems to be well documented. 

[marty998]

If would have been smart of Trump to legalize recreational drugs, prostitution, gambling, and anything else he could think of to keep us from "paying attention" to his crooked ways. 


I think football season started again, but that's just not enough of a diversion for his 3 ring circus. 


Btw, can a President plea insanity?  It seems to be well documented.

He certainly won't plead the 5th. Muppet can't keep his mouth shut.

[MasterStache]

Trump is hammering away at Sessions now and Sessions is hammering back. I have to say, with each passing day, I am so glad I didn't vote for nor ever supported this administration. Man what a complete and utter shit show.

[nereo]

Diversionary (aka divisionary) tactics are a core strategy of this administration, and are ongoing. Most recently DJT's tweets about white South African land owners losing their property without compensation - not our country and the true story and not even remotely a significant problem in the world (as foreign policy goes). I've no doubt DJT will continue with this playbook and over the next few months rip into NFL players, insult allied leaders, attack US corporations and find numerous other social issues to tweet about.

[GuitarStv]

Trump has vowed to tank the market if impeached.

[nereo]

Trump has vowed to tank the market if impeached.

source?
Also - I struggle to understand how he could accomplish this.  Broadly speaking Congress holds the purse strings, so he'd need 218 House reps + 51 senators in order to intentionally tank the economy, and I doubt even the most loyal Trump supporters would cut off their own noses to spite their face. It's against the Trump ethos to make money at all costs, and to measure success in dollars.

[FIPurpose]

I don't know if I'll regret joining this thread or not.

I think it's a mistake going after Sessions. From the time that I spent in Alabama, the people there like him, and I don't think the people of Alabama feel higher loyalty to Trump than they do to Sessions. The stance that Sessions is taking is exactly what most voters in Alabama would want.

I think Trump thinks himself more popular than he really is. Honestly, I think most Republicans are backing him because they also think he's more popular than he really is. All Republicans need to flip their vote for removal is to see that Trump cannot actually demand votes.

[GuitarStv]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/trump-declares-market-would-crash-if-democrats-impeached-him.html

[nereo]

I think Trump thinks himself more popular than he really is. Honestly, I think most Republicans are backing him because they also think he's more popular than he really is. All Republicans need to flip their vote for removal is to see that Trump cannot actually demand votes.

That's the problem with surrounding yourself with sycophants and seeking out information that only supports your views (confirmation bias) - invariably you wind up thinking you are smarter and more popular than you actually are. The history of many of our market crashes is a testament to what happens in this kind of closed-loop ecosystem.  Great leaders take at least some time to ask critics what they think they are doing wrong and what could be improved.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/trump-declares-market-would-crash-if-democrats-impeached-him.html

Interesting, but not really what you claimed earlier, which is that Trump would intentionally spike the market.  This article basically says Trump believes impeaching him would cause markets to collapse.  And given how markets hate short-term uncertainty, I think they might go into correction territory if impeachment proceedings went forward.

[MrDelane]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/trump-declares-market-would-crash-if-democrats-impeached-him.html

Saying he believes the market would tank if he were impeached and 'vowing to tank the market' if impeached are not the same thing at all.


ETA:  Oops, I see nereo beat me to it.

[Davnasty]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/trump-declares-market-would-crash-if-democrats-impeached-him.html

Saying he believes the market would tank if he were impeached and 'vowing to tank the market' if impeached are not the same thing at all.


ETA:  Oops, I see nereo beat me to it.

How much would it suck if this played out though? It's just a standard tactic of conspiracy theorists everywhere, make lot's of predictions and when/if one comes true, you'll get some true believers on your side. If this happened he would undoubtedly have millions convinced that he was in control of the economy and by extension that presidents in general have more influence on the economy than they really do.

[Kris]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/trump-declares-market-would-crash-if-democrats-impeached-him.html

Saying he believes the market would tank if he were impeached and 'vowing to tank the market' if impeached are not the same thing at all.


ETA:  Oops, I see nereo beat me to it.

How much would it suck if this played out though? It's just a standard tactic of conspiracy theorists everywhere, make lot's of predictions and when/if one comes true, you'll get some true believers on your side. If this happened he would undoubtedly have millions convinced that he was in control of the economy and by extension that presidents in general have more influence on the economy than they really do.

It won't crash, but the consequent uncertainty might make it a little wobbly for a bit. Honestly, President Idiot/Savant has stumbled on a not-horrible tactic here, from his perspective. I mean, he's clearly worried about impeachment now because he's talking about it so much. But the market is due for a tumble, and we're due for a recession, in part because of his shitty policies. Donald Trump is the kind of guy who would want to leave a train wreck in his wake -- that's just the kind of selfish child he is. And he's gonna beat this drum for a while, which means it will be in the minds of his cult-like base. So, when the inevitable next recession hits, they will all blame it on Trump's removal. And they'll never be convinced otherwise.

[sol]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/trump-declares-market-would-crash-if-democrats-impeached-him.html

Saying he believes the market would tank if he were impeached and 'vowing to tank the market' if impeached are not the same thing at all.

In his case, they might be the same thing.

Trump didn't tell Manafort he would pardon him if he covered for his crimes, he had his lawyer say they discussed a pardon, on the day after Manafort was convicted.

He didn't say he supported the white nationalist agenda, he said some very fine people were marching, when asked about the protests.

I'm sure you can think of other examples.  Trump knows he can't just say what he really means without backlash, so he just sort of suggests instead.  His supporters know to read between the lines.  Maybe we should too.

He's the master of thinly veiled threats.  All he had to do is place that fear and uncertainty in people's minds, and some of them will latch onto his "strong leadership" as a security blanket.  This market talk is is just him trying to solidify his base with the stick instead of the carrot.

[talltexan]

Oh, look, Mike Pence has been put in charge of saving the Republican majorities in Congress during the midterms. Not an unimportant job.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/mike-pence-goes-to-midwest-to-convince-gop-donors-everything-is-ok.html

So--as he starts to make personnel decisions, will he opt for good, reliable people who care about the rule of law? Or will he choose people who've shown loyalty to Trump and a willingness to get into legal trouble?

https://www.businessinsider.com/pence-hires-corey-lewandowski-2020-election-trump-2018-5

[GuitarStv]

Oh, look, Mike Pence has been put in charge of saving the Republican majorities in Congress during the midterms. Not an unimportant job.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/mike-pence-goes-to-midwest-to-convince-gop-donors-everything-is-ok.html

So--as he starts to make personnel decisions, will he opt for good, reliable people who care about the rule of law? Or will he choose people who've shown loyalty to Trump and a willingness to get into legal trouble?

https://www.businessinsider.com/pence-hires-corey-lewandowski-2020-election-trump-2018-5

I pick option 3 . . . religious extremists like himself that he can trust as he prepares to take over.

[FIPurpose]

Oh, look, Mike Pence has been put in charge of saving the Republican majorities in Congress during the midterms. Not an unimportant job.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/mike-pence-goes-to-midwest-to-convince-gop-donors-everything-is-ok.html

So--as he starts to make personnel decisions, will he opt for good, reliable people who care about the rule of law? Or will he choose people who've shown loyalty to Trump and a willingness to get into legal trouble?

https://www.businessinsider.com/pence-hires-corey-lewandowski-2020-election-trump-2018-5

I expect that Pence has kept himself clean of any wrongdoing and that he could survive a Trump impeachment process. I personally would rather see Paul Ryan become president, but I think Pence has been thinking about this since he signed up to be VP.

[Just Joe]

Tonight the news is reporting that after Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to commit a felony campaign finance violation by paying his mistress $130k, Trump then repaid Cohen using the Trump Organization.  As in, he didn't cut him a personal check, he had his business do it.

This is an important distinction because Donald Trump the individual person cannot be indicted for this crime while he is still a sitting President, but the Trump Organization is a corporate entity that can be indicted. 

Does it make sense to indict the Trump Organization, of which he is the head?  I have no idea.  Corporations can't go to jail, but they can pay fines.  I don't know if such an indictment would prevent Donald Trump the individual person from being indicted for the same crime at a later time.  I don't know if it's a crime to use your personal business to funnel hush money to your porn star mistress.  Is that like a legitimate business expense?  Did he claim it on his taxes?

And I'm still not sure what happens next!  Trump is more clearly implicated as being directly involved in the commission of a crime than Nixon ever was, and in Nixon's case this situation rapidly led to a resignation because the evidence was turned over to Congress for impeachment hearings.  Is that even still on the table?  This thread has spent a lot of time arguing about whether or not it makes sense to try to impeach Trump, but that was mostly before he was a felon.  Is Congress really so cowed by Trump that they won't impeach no matter what crimes he has committed?

What's the difference between hush money and prostitution? If someone hires a woman for an evening and then pays her hush money - they are legal - right?

[MasterStache]

Anyone else catch Trump admitting he hired Sessions because he thought he would be loyal? Not because he was qualified for the job and not because he felt he was the best candidate. This coming in the midst of Giuliani questioning weather Trump ever asked for Comey's loyalty. Jesus!

[talltexan]

the violation itself was basically a record keeping/reporting violation.

The difference is that this was an intentional effort to conceal a known crime, not a paperwork mistake.  See the difference?

Just had a thought: maybe the timing of the Cohen --> Daniels payment wasn't about voters. Maybe it was about keeping Pence on the ticket. Pence responded very negatively to the breaking of the Access Hollywood tape, after all. If that payment had come to light the same week, he might have told Trump to stuff it.
Trump's affair was not a crime (or int he event he was in one of the jurisdictions that still has infidelity or fornication on the books as a criminal offense, not one that can be prosecuted).  If the payment was a campaign expense, the only crime was not reporting it.  The fact that he was paying it because he was being blackmailed about an affair is certainly seedier, but the crime, if any exists, is a reporting/record keeping one.  I suspect if Trump had thought it was a campaign expenditure, he would have been happy for the campaign to pay for it and to filter it through Cohen as "legal expenses" like Hillary did for opposition research.   

Of course I suspect if that had happened all the people currently absolutely certain that it was a campaign expenditure would instead be arguing that he used campaign funds for a personal expense.

I don't get this take. There's already a guilty plea because the crime exists.  It's not Schroedinger's campaign finance violation.   Is this where the red caps are these days?  He paid off a porn star but it's just the same as when the Obama campaign didn't get their reports in on time?  The problem with that is that this story has everything: sex, blackmail, the National Enquirer.  It's right in the cognitive wheelhouse for his base.  They don't know shit about the Magnitsky Act, but they sure know about porn stars and tabloids.  So, it not only seems wrong to pay off a porn star, but it turns out that it actually is illegal.  You don't really get that feeling when you hear that the Obama campaign was supposed to get their donors reported within 48 hours, failed to do it, but then paid a fine.  Again, this isn't a comment on whether actions have to sound slimy to actual be illegal (lots of slimy things are perfectly legal and lots of innocent-sounding things are not), but it's harder to get the public on your side when the slimy actions line up with actual violations of the law.

[talltexan]

Trump has vowed to tank the market if impeached.

source?
Also - I struggle to understand how he could accomplish this.  Broadly speaking Congress holds the purse strings, so he'd need 218 House reps + 51 senators in order to intentionally tank the economy, and I doubt even the most loyal Trump supporters would cut off their own noses to spite their face. It's against the Trump ethos to make money at all costs, and to measure success in dollars.

**exasperated** The tariffs are about intentionally tanking the economy. As in that is the only thing they do.

[StarBright]

Oh, look, Mike Pence has been put in charge of saving the Republican majorities in Congress during the midterms. Not an unimportant job.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/mike-pence-goes-to-midwest-to-convince-gop-donors-everything-is-ok.html

So--as he starts to make personnel decisions, will he opt for good, reliable people who care about the rule of law? Or will he choose people who've shown loyalty to Trump and a willingness to get into legal trouble?

https://www.businessinsider.com/pence-hires-corey-lewandowski-2020-election-trump-2018-5

Pence was in my l'il midwestern town last week to work some rich donors and we had a nice little protest in front of their house sponsored by the local LGTBQ group.

[talltexan]

Nereo-
I was overly exasperated in that reply. Rereading your objections, I think you deserved a more measured response than I gave the first time.

Particularly since there is little evidence that the tariffs affect share prices, and I haven't offered another example of a step Trump could take that would jitter market confidence, you're probably correct: Trump simply believes that him being POTUS is what's caused this nice appreciation in the SP500.

[toganet]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/trump-declares-market-would-crash-if-democrats-impeached-him.html

Saying he believes the market would tank if he were impeached and 'vowing to tank the market' if impeached are not the same thing at all.

In his case, they might be the same thing.

Trump didn't tell Manafort he would pardon him if he covered for his crimes, he had his lawyer say they discussed a pardon, on the day after Manafort was convicted.

He didn't say he supported the white nationalist agenda, he said some very fine people were marching, when asked about the protests.

I'm sure you can think of other examples.  Trump knows he can't just say what he really means without backlash, so he just sort of suggests instead.  His supporters know to read between the lines.  Maybe we should too.

He's the master of thinly veiled threats.  All he had to do is place that fear and uncertainty in people's minds, and some of them will latch onto his "strong leadership" as a security blanket.  This market talk is is just him trying to solidify his base with the stick instead of the carrot.

There's a book that goes into this: Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us

The gist is that "Gaslighting" is an aggressive and elaborate scheme that can be used to persuade and increase control over people. The author then explains the steps and shows that this forms a consistent pattern:

• Stake a Claim
• Advance and Deny
• Create Suspense
• Discredit the Opponent
• Win

The most interesting part of this pattern to me is step 2 -- Trump frequently prefaces his statements with, "people are saying..." as if the crazy thing he is about to allege is already out there being talked about.  Then he denies that he was the one who started talking about it, or that he even believes it.

What I don't get is how anyone can respect someone who does this?  If I had to interact with him in my personal life, I would stay as far away as possible.  He sets off all my "don't-trust-him" alarms.

[talltexan]

Being in a romantic relationship with a person like this sounds miserable.

But Trump applied it to building his business and building a brand, and the timing worked out for him perfectly. The strength of that brand--amplified through the apprentice--allowed him the bigger stage to apply these techniques.

(Dilbert Creator) Scott Adams' book Win Bigly unpacks these tools in greater detail. I haven't purchased or read the book, but I suspect it would be a great pairing with the Gaslighting text, and it would come from a person who is pro-Trump.

[FIRE@50]

If would have been smart of Trump to legalize recreational drugs, prostitution, gambling, and anything else he could think of to keep us from "paying attention" to his crooked ways. 


I think football season started again, but that's just not enough of a diversion for his 3 ring circus. 


Btw, can a President plea insanity?  It seems to be well documented.

I fully support that platform.

[Jrr85]

I have no opinion on how it will play in the public.  Even after the fact, I can't imagine how we ended up with Hillary Clinton and Donal Trump as the major party nominees for president, so I certainly can't predict how the public will handle things, but what statute does paying hush money to keep an extramarital affair private violate?  I'm pretty sure that's not illegal.

Here's where the DOJ makes its case. See both the indictment (first doc) and the Information (second doc, scroll down). Campaign finance violations begin on page 11 of the information
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement

According to the information, Cohen had an assigned responsibility of using money to suppress stories that would negatively impact the campaign. Those are campaign expenses. Hiding those expenses is illegal. Not knowing that is not a get out of jail free card. Covering up the expenses was not a "oops, we forgot to write that in a ledger." According to the information, Cohen set up shell companies through which to make the payments. This was willful and intentional in order to suppress information about the candidate. This is not the same as not being able to meet an administrative burden, as you put it above. It is also clearly not a private transaction in which Trump handed a former mistress an envelope with cash drawn from his personal account.

ETA: as is clear in the indictment, the women were negotiating with third parties to sell their stories to tabloids. Trump's campaign bought the rights to the stories, effectively suppressing them. That is not direct blackmail.

I didn't say that there couldn't be a reporting issue that was illegal.  I said that paying to keep somebody quiet about an affair is not in itself illegal. 

And if the women didn't notify anybody with trump that they were going to sell the story, then maybe they could avoid it being blackmail.  But just offering to sell it to a tabloid first and then offering to let Trump outbid them is still blackmail. 

[Malloy]

I have no opinion on how it will play in the public.  Even after the fact, I can't imagine how we ended up with Hillary Clinton and Donal Trump as the major party nominees for president, so I certainly can't predict how the public will handle things, but what statute does paying hush money to keep an extramarital affair private violate?  I'm pretty sure that's not illegal.

Well, judging from the Cohen plea, the statutes are 52 USC 30116, 30118, 30109 and 18 USC 2.  I'm not sure which ones apply to Trump, but clearly there are statutes that govern payments to porn stars from corporate donations when you are providing services to a presidential candidate. Aren't you also arguing that Cohen plead guilty but most likely didn't break any laws, got bad legal advice, and/or did it out of spite?  Isn't this a "truth isn't truth"argument?  The dude plead guilty to charges.  We can't take that at face value?  This seems like a lot of mental gymnastics in the service of defending someone who really doesn't deserve your efforts.  I mean, I think that you are also saying saying the law is unclear and impossible to adhere to (except by maybe not engaging in paid sex with porn stars and getting your company to pay her off), but that's not the same as whether or not they are in violation of the law.

[Glenstache]

My personal opinion (YMMV) is that there is a difference between intentional concealment for a specific purpose and what I would consider a reporting error. Calling something a reporting error implies that there was a good-faith effort to complete the necessary reporting. The charges against Cohen are clearly not a case of a reporting error. My read is that there was, across a spectrum of business dealings, a pattern of concealment for gain. That gain ranged from garden variety financial gain to preventing information from being released that would impact a presidential bid. My understanding is that Cohen was in communication with the tabloid owner (who appears to have both a safe full of these stories and immunity, which should be good for other tabloids in the near future); those communications revealed the parallel negotiations for the story.

As a tangent, I also would not call Manafort's tax evasion a reporting error.

[Dancin'Dog]

Would anything be funnier than Trump being brought down by the National Enquirer!?  LOL!!!

[GuitarStv]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/24/longtime-trump-organization-cfo-weisselberg-granted-immunity-in-cohen-probe-dj-citing-sources.html

Lotta people being granted immunity in this investigation.

[Jrr85]

I have no opinion on how it will play in the public.  Even after the fact, I can't imagine how we ended up with Hillary Clinton and Donal Trump as the major party nominees for president, so I certainly can't predict how the public will handle things, but what statute does paying hush money to keep an extramarital affair private violate?  I'm pretty sure that's not illegal.

Well, judging from the Cohen plea, the statutes are 52 USC 30116, 30118, 30109 and 18 USC 2.  I'm not sure which ones apply to Trump, but clearly there are statutes that govern payments to porn stars from corporate donations when you are providing services to a presidential candidate.

None of those deal with paying hush money to a porn star.  They are all campaign finance related provisions, except the last one deals with making it illegal to cause somebody else to do something illegal.  It is simply not illegal to pay hush money regarding an affair. 

Aren't you also arguing that Cohen plead guilty but most likely didn't break any laws, got bad legal advice, and/or did it out of spite?  Isn't this a "truth isn't truth"argument?  The dude plead guilty to charges.  We can't take that at face value? 

  No, I feel it's extremely likely Cohen committed crimes.  I'm arguing that for him to plead guilty to charges it would be extremely difficult to convict on, there is a reason.  As I said, my guess is that he is relying on an informal agreement with the prosecutor, but i don't have any insight into that, just that I doubt he would plea to an extra crime just to stick it to Trump unless it didn't result in any increased sentence under teh federal sentencing guidelines, which I assume is not the case.

This seems like a lot of mental gymnastics in the service of defending someone who really doesn't deserve your efforts.  I mean, I think that you are also saying saying the law is unclear and impossible to adhere to (except by maybe not engaging in paid sex with porn stars and getting your company to pay her off), but that's not the same as whether or not they are in violation of the law.

  I'm not saying it's impossible to adhere to the law; I'm just saying that it's common to fail to because it is a significant administrative burden and not everybody is successful at managing it.  Bob Dole got popped and Obama got popped, and I don't think they had a problem with having sex with porn stars and then paying them off.  I try to never overestimate politicians though so I'm open to any argument that they were banging porn stars if you have one to make. 

[GuitarStv]

I'm not saying it's impossible to adhere to the law; I'm just saying that it's common to fail to because it is a significant administrative burden and not everybody is successful at managing it.  Bob Dole got popped and Obama got popped, and I don't think they had a problem with having sex with porn stars and then paying them off.  I try to never overestimate politicians though so I'm open to any argument that they were banging porn stars if you have one to make.

After the stark difference between Obama's administrative oversight and Trump's intentionally non-reported hush payments has been brought up several times, why do you keep trying to make this false equivalency between the two?

[Jrr85]

My personal opinion (YMMV) is that there is a difference between intentional concealment for a specific purpose and what I would consider a reporting error. Calling something a reporting error implies that there was a good-faith effort to complete the necessary reporting. The charges against Cohen are clearly not a case of a reporting error. My read is that there was, across a spectrum of business dealings, a pattern of concealment for gain. That gain ranged from garden variety financial gain to preventing information from being released that would impact a presidential bid. My understanding is that Cohen was in communication with the tabloid owner (who appears to have both a safe full of these stories and immunity, which should be good for other tabloids in the near future); those communications revealed the parallel negotiations for the story.

As a tangent, I also would not call Manafort's tax evasion a reporting error.

manafort's tax evasion was not a reporting error.  He was evading taxes. 

Providing Trump wasn't embezzling from business partners or evading taxes (both potentially possible with where the money came from), he wasn't avoiding any burden other than the reporting.  He actually increased his burden, because if hush payments were truly a campaign expense, he could have used campaign money rather than personal money.

I suspect neither he nor Cohen gave any thought to whether it was a reportable campaign expense because Cohen was not a specialist and Trump probably didn't bring issues like this to anybody other than Cohen. 

[Jrr85]

I'm not saying it's impossible to adhere to the law; I'm just saying that it's common to fail to because it is a significant administrative burden and not everybody is successful at managing it.  Bob Dole got popped and Obama got popped, and I don't think they had a problem with having sex with porn stars and then paying them off.  I try to never overestimate politicians though so I'm open to any argument that they were banging porn stars if you have one to make.

After the stark difference between Obama's administrative oversight and Trump's intentionally non-reported hush payments has been brought up several times, why do you keep trying to make this false equivalency between the two?

It's not a false equivalency.  There is a big moral difference between paying off a porn star and not paying off a porn star.  If people want to argue that Obama is better on this front, I think that's a pretty iron clad position to argue. 

But legally, what people are talking about is the same, with the potential difference that Obama was going to comply but did not do so timely, and Trump through oversight or misinterpretation, was not going to comply at all.   

[Glenstache]

I'm not saying it's impossible to adhere to the law; I'm just saying that it's common to fail to because it is a significant administrative burden and not everybody is successful at managing it.  Bob Dole got popped and Obama got popped, and I don't think they had a problem with having sex with porn stars and then paying them off.  I try to never overestimate politicians though so I'm open to any argument that they were banging porn stars if you have one to make.

After the stark difference between Obama's administrative oversight and Trump's intentionally non-reported hush payments has been brought up several times, why do you keep trying to make this false equivalency between the two?

I think the difference here is that if Trump had made these payments in 2006, and there was no campaign around then, yes, it would not have been illegal to pay hush money. The difference is that in this case there is a direct, and apparently well-documented, link to a campaign. Those payments were intentionally concealed. Within that context, yes the hush payments became illegal. Context matters.

[GuitarStv]

But legally, what people are talking about is the same, with the potential difference that Obama was going to comply but did not do so timely, and Trump through oversight or misinterpretation, was not going to comply at all.

That's a pretty big difference, is it not?

Also, Trump didn't fail to report his spending through oversight or misinterpretation.  He didn't report the money because it was hush money.  If he had reported it, that would have defeated the purpose of paying it in the first place, right?  That was a willful decision to hide the money.

[nereo]

Nereo-
I was overly exasperated in that reply. Rereading your objections, I think you deserved a more measured response than I gave the first time.

Particularly since there is little evidence that the tariffs affect share prices, and I haven't offered another example of a step Trump could take that would jitter market confidence, you're probably correct: Trump simply believes that him being POTUS is what's caused this nice appreciation in the SP500.

no offense taken, but thanks for the follow up.  I'm just here to hear different ideas and perspectives (and to share my own, of course)

[Glenstache]

I'm not saying it's impossible to adhere to the law; I'm just saying that it's common to fail to because it is a significant administrative burden and not everybody is successful at managing it.  Bob Dole got popped and Obama got popped, and I don't think they had a problem with having sex with porn stars and then paying them off.  I try to never overestimate politicians though so I'm open to any argument that they were banging porn stars if you have one to make.

After the stark difference between Obama's administrative oversight and Trump's intentionally non-reported hush payments has been brought up several times, why do you keep trying to make this false equivalency between the two?

It's not a false equivalency.  There is a big moral difference between paying off a porn star and not paying off a porn star.  If people want to argue that Obama is better on this front, I think that's a pretty iron clad position to argue. 

But legally, what people are talking about is the same, with the potential difference that Obama was going to comply but did not do so timely, and Trump through oversight or misinterpretation, was not going to comply at all.

It seems the kernel of this is whether we think that they simply didn't recognize that this would be considered a payment that would require disclosure, or if it was intentionally hidden. I think that we would all agree that from a legal standpoint ignorance of a law does not provide immunity from that law; and as a leading presidential candidate it is reasonable to expect the campaign to have staff that know these rules. Clearly the GOP has run a few campaigns and has people that know these things.

In the context of the payment, Cohen and co. went to great lengths to conceal the payments. Perhaps this was just business as usual for them to provide a greater certainty that these things would not be revealed. Perhaps. But it is also true that the very reporting of that payment would reveal the issue if someone traced back the payments. I think that if they have emails or other communications documenting that they did this to prevent disclosure in association with the campaign (there is clear motive) then the prosecutors have a strong case.

I am also not surprised in the least to hear Trump going on Fox news to claim that this wasn't really a campaign contribution. He has lied about so many things that lying to divert or provide from something that actually matters seems like a predicted behavior. Given that his pattern of behavior is one of looseness with facts, I am less likely to trust him when he offers an alternate explanation. As Maya Angelou says, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." Or in this case, well, I've lost count of how many times Trump has shown that he prefers to cover things up and be dishonest.

[nereo]

None of those deal with paying hush money to a porn star.  They are all campaign finance related provisions, except the last one deals with making it illegal to cause somebody else to do something illegal.  It is simply not illegal to pay hush money regarding an affair. 

If you are a candidate running for federal office, it is.  It's an even bigger crime, though, to conceal these payments from your campaign filings by i) saying they never happened, ii) having your personal lawyer make the payments while denying their existence and iii) running bogus invoices through another corporation to avoid these legal requirements.

The phrase: The coverup may be worse than the crime may be apt here, though in this case the coverup was explicitly to avoid losing votes in a very close Presidential election.

...and can we realize that paying for sex (as Trump has been implicated in doing) IS actually illegal the states this reportedly happened? Not to mention morally reprehensible when one is married with a newborn?  And that our Founders considered morally reprehensible behavior to be grounds for impeachment, even if it occurred when the individual was not President (See George Mason's argument) ?  The argument then either becomes A) These things didn't actually happen, despite testimony under oath of multiple individuals, or ... B) somehow committing adultery and engaging in prostitution and then lying about it and breaking laws in the process to gain the office of the presidency is 'ok'.

[GuitarStv]

...and can we realize that paying for sex (as Trump has been implicated in doing) IS actually illegal the states this reportedly happened?

Not if there's a video tape of the sex.  If there was, then it becomes pornography not prostitution and is protected under the first amendment.  :P